About Me

Monday, April 18, 2016

CLEAN READS, A Publishing House that Deems #LGBT "Dirty"

I was just at the Romantic Times convention in Las Vegas this past weekend. For those of you who might not be aware of the gathering, it's one of the largest romance reader/author cons in the country, attracting several thousand fans, authors, and industry professionals.

At the Giant Book Signing, which was mind-boggling, I started to notice a group promoting itself called Clean Reads.

I was curious, so I went to their website to find out more about them. They're a publisher and their tagline is "All story. No Guilt." Not a big fan of guilt, so that was good. And I love stories, so that was good. I did wonder--why would anyone feel guilty about reading a book?

I read their "About Us" and found this:

"Clean Reads (formerly Astraea Press) is proud to offer wholesome reading without compromise. We don’t believe a story has to have profanity, sex, or graphic violence to catch a reader’s attention. Our stories – rich and vibrant with life – leap from the page, welcoming readers to a world they’ll remember long after the last words are read. Life doesn’t exist in a single nuance, and neither do we. Clean Reads is excited to celebrate authors and readers of every genre."

Okay. That sounds like a reasonable premise. Not everyone wants "hot" or "steamy" or even profanity in their books. And that's fine; I was actually glad to see that Clean Reads filled a niche.

Then I checked their submissions page and was shocked. Offended. Felt, once again, discriminated against. Out in the cold. Worst of all, I felt "dirty." Because, if you're not "clean", it follows that you're dirty. Here's the part of Clean Reads submission page that had me feeling queasy and bad for myself and everyone else who identified as LGBT:

What we are NOT looking for:

What? Seriously? No homosexual characters? Why? Can't homosexuals be included in a "clean" story? What if that story doesn't contain explicit sex, profanity, or graphic violence? Just the fact that people are gay (the way God made them, in my opinion) is a good enough reason to keep them far, far away from anything "clean"?

Shame on you, Clean Reads, for perpetuating the idea that gay people are "dirty" and not worthy of being included in your canon of "clean" literature. You perpetuate the mindset that gay people are deserving of discrimination, of being outcast, of being viewed as somehow less worthy than straight people.

87 comments:

Wow. I had zero idea. They were passing those buttons out as people were standing in line to go into the book signing with the announcement that anyone wearing a pin had the chance to win 1 of 10 Kindle Fires. I know quite a few people who would be absolutely appalled that they were wearing it at all. :(

I know! It was all the buttons at the signing that drew my attention to them. I'm outraged and offended. There's no reason a story that's clean according to any and all of their other criteria, but has characters who are gay, can't be considered a "clean read." It's appalling.

Following the logic, all sex is also dirty which raises another entire level of discussion. Every reader has the freedom read what they want and publishers have the freedom to publish it. However, I do not like subversive implications of Clean Reads language.

Exactly. I'm all for freedom of speech and readers having this choice. The implications about sex in general are thought-provoking, but I still think the house and its readers can make that choice and I respect it. What galls me is the implication that gay does not equal clean. What a hurtful, harmful, and bigoted message to send!

I think "clean" and "purity" are dogwhistle code words for right-wing religionists - but I can see the point of being able to find books to recommend to younger readers. I wouldn't give a 12-year-old a graphic BDSM novel. But there are other, less charged, words to use. "YOUNG ADULT," for instance, which usually means no explicit sex.

Grrrr, romance love and sex between consenting adults in any number or gender or combination is clean and good. This company is sending a wrong message imo. I'm all for warnings so that people who don't want to read mm/mf/ff or what ever don't have to, but to ban it is wrong.I shall not be buying or recommending Clean Reads!

You have to consider the source, Rick. My initial reaction is to be outraged of course, but consider this. I can almost assure you 'wholesome' means erased. It means flat. Sex is not a requirement in books, but humanity is. And humanity covers a broad spectrum of people, including Ms. Stephanie Taylor and her band of protestant ninnies. Life is beautiful. It is wicked and triumphant and everything in between. It is awash in scandal and redemption. Fear and serenity. Sure, she'll have an audience of like minded people. It's not gays they fear. It's not sex. It's humanity. It's themselves. They're afraid of being alive and so they choose to not be and it translates to tepidity. Luke Warmness. Don't be mad at them. Feel bad for them. Because at least you are alive.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times. I lived this life--it's like being a non-person. It's incredibly stifling. I don't think I ever considered it in exactly those words, but this captures it perfectly.

Telling. And the fact that they were duping my readers into promoting the via giveaways you won by wearing the button made me furious at the time. My goal was positivity this year but expect a long blog post from me too

From their website: "No premarital sex allowed unless consequences are involved (such as a baby or ruined relationship)." Based on their website, I have a pretty strong feeling that they wouldn't consider just blah sex or an abortion options for consequences. It should either end with a baby or that horny guy/girl screwing you over later on. Their motto is "All story. No guilt." I'm not sure that sort of message about premarital sex is going to lead to readers feeling "no guilt." But maybe that's just me.

so according to your logic screenplays, non fiction and poetry (which clean reads does not accept) are also "dirty"? Nonsense. How about the reality that clean reads is only an expert in selling specific genre's of fiction in a VAST arena of genre's. Dude....you are conflating and trying to start a fight where one does not exist. Move along bro'.

'You are conflating and trying to start a fight where one does not exist. Move along, bro,'I think it's safe to say that in the marketplace of ideas, when an idea is introduced, it can either be accepted as truth or shot down as a falsehood. But Rick has a right to partake in that debate. It was this website that entered into the fray by promoting this idea of what she considers 'clean'. The reason she doesn't accept non-fiction, screenplays, and poetry is because she's simply not in that market so- no, it doesn't make sense to add those into the category of 'dirty'. And while I doubt Rick is trying to start a fight, I think he has every single right as a gay person, as an author, as a human being to partake in the marketplace discussion on whether or not this concept is truthful in it's assertion that clean means everything but x,y,and z, or whether or not these people are complete bullshit. I tend towards the latter.

My logic is sound, thank you. I can see screenplays, non-fiction, and poetry for they are: things. Homosexuals, just to let you know, are people. People who bleed, who love, who cry, who make mistakes, who rejoice, who despair. In short, they are people with stories. Some clean, some dirty, just like everyone else. I will not "move along" when I see people who are my family, my friends, and myself being discriminated against and targeted specifically because they're implicitly not clean. Silence in the face of bigotry is not my style. But thank you for sharing your opinion in the conversation. I will certainly think more about what you said and hope you will return the same courtesy to me.

Oh, no. This fight exists, and Rick didn't start it. A book about a family with two gay men or lesbian parents can be as wholesome as Donna Reed. Clean Reads, by refusing to look at the CONTENT, and just refusing the books outright because of the orientation of the characters, is exhibiting bigoted behavior. They need to fix this.

Lets' clarify: A "bigot" is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion". CR, like anyone else, has every right to choose what they want to publish. This is not about intolerance, but about preference. Many publishing houses are the same be it refusal to accept Christian submissions, erotica, whatever, but it is their right, it is their company. What's wonderful is that there are many houses to choose from. CR doesn't need to "fix" anything. They aren't broken. They have their beliefs as anyone does and let us not take that away.

I'm having trouble even articulating a response. You've taken one small press, within a booming world of publishing houses, which does not focus on the LGBT community–and also does not publish anything overtly sexual, or which contains curse words, etc.–and have chosen to savage it–and incite others to savage it–simply because you don't feel included and don't agree with that publishing house's submission guidelines. If the publishing house focused ONLY on LGBT literature and refused to publish any stories with straight characters, you would applaud it. You are attacking Clean Reads with the same mindset and anger that the LGBT community has faced from cisgendered people for decades. I would have thought that someone who identifies as LGBT would have had more understanding of what it's like to be apart from the mainstream. And currently, LGBT (teen books, in particular, as well as romance) are rising stars, and some of the hottest sellers out there. It is something that (finally) has gained enough mass to maintain active expansion within the publishing community. Which is awesome.

However, in contrast, publishing houses that offer books which do not contain casual sex, gratuitous violence, cursing or other 'politically hot' subjects are in the minority, and on the downslide. Clean Reads was probably the only publisher of so-called 'clean' (a term which, contrary to your offended senses and insinuations, has been applied to books that don't contain cursing, or other politically sensitive themes for decades now) books attending Romantic Times, and instead of looking around and seeing hundreds of publishing houses that DO cater to the LGBT community, you've chosen–after perusing just a few paragraphs on a website–to single-mindedly go after Clean Reads for simply 'being different' and not producing books with the same content as everyone else. Shame on YOU for preemptively judging others in such a dismissive and hateful way.

And because I'm sure that you'll google me, I'm an author with Clean Reads. My debut novel, Catskin–a book turned down by agents for not being 'dirty' and 'edgy' enough to 'fit the real world' was just released in March. The main character is a minority (!) and one of his friends, a main player in the story, is a lesbian (!!!) and I, myself, identify as genderqueer and aromatic.

So perhaps you should actually get to know a company and the people within it before you make snap judgements about them the same way bigots make snap judgements about the LGBT community.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Artemis. I appreciate your speaking out even though I don't agree with you. Best of luck to you with your work and your life. But as I said above, I won't stay silent when I see what TO ME is bigotry and exclusion. We'll just have to agree to disagree as writers and as people.

Agree that we'll just have to agree to disagree on certain points. I am curious, though, what your basis for exclusionary entities are? Should I be angry, and speak out against the agents who rejected me (with actual letters of explanation) because they said that Catskin didn't include enough sex, and/or edginess to be success in the market? Is it not exclusionary that books which DON'T contain enough sex are passed up by publishers? What about publishers who specifically publish only LGBT stories? Should writers who have books which don't contain LGBT characters speak out against them? After all, they're excluding all straight characters.

I'm not being facetious, I'm truthfully curious to hear your opinion. I am ecstatic that the LGBT community is finally getting a competitive voice within the publishing (and other) industries. What I'm having trouble with here, is that you feel as though one publishing house among thousands deserves to be slandered simply because you feel excluded. As I said, I'm genderqueer and aromantic. It's not like I don't understand what exclusion feels like. However, the most awesome part about the publishing industry is that there are thousands of publishing houses out there. There are also publishing houses that routinely publish dozens of titles a year that promote anti-LGBT themes. Clean Reads makes no statements AGAINST the LGBT community, they simply do not accept submissions where LGBT characters and issues are front and center. There are other niche publishers that commit the opposite, and ONLY accept LGBT, and I don't see any straight people inciting boycott against them for it.

As I said, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand how you can be so offended and feel so excluded by one small publisher that you'd seek to publicly ostracize them when they've done nothing to deserve it. Do you speak out publicly against the Catholic church? And any other religious unit that does not condone our views?

You are missing the point. Deliberately, I think. And the point is that if sex is "dirty," okay, fine; I would not give a youngster a book with explicit sex. But to assume that ALL LGBT books are about sex is offensive. The exclusion equates BEING gay with "dirty." And I think you know that.

Try reading one of Charlie Cochrane's "Lessons in" series. Those books are as gently romantic as Georgette Heyer. There is the implication of a relationship, but no explicit sex (and before I respond to the religious issue, Charlie's an active Christian. A real one.)

I do speak out publicly against any church that discriminates against people by orientation or gender identity; the catholic church is one of the worst. Because they spent million$ on Prop H8 when (since they do not "condone" same-sex marriage) it is no business of theirs in a secular nation.

You're defending the indefensible. And you will not convince anyone that discrimination is okay.

I'm not speaking for Rick, but I personally like wholesome stuff. I see something like Clean Reads and I think, "Great! I would like to read about two chaste women who build a strong relationship together based on faith/spirit/family/tradition." (Or apparently, accidental baby-making). And then I find out that not only are gays not welcome, but they're sandwiched between erotica and BDSM, as if they're some sort of kink.

So I'm hurt, disappointed, and frustrated. What's not "clean" about what I want to read? Yes, luckily my own publishing company has a reputation for Christian GLBT fiction, which is great, but there's still a part of me that feels like a rejected, shamed child when it comes to this sort of thing.

Artemis...I think Lee Rowan beat me to the punch and said pretty much what I said. Just one thing: I was raised in a staunch Roman Catholic family and you better believe I do speak up against it. I miss the beauty of the rituals and the faith underlying the Church, but I do not feel welcome within its walls, simply because who I choose to love. It's kind of like I'm unwelcome at Clean Reads, simply because I choose to write about people who have same-sex oriented love.

For an author I would have expected a stronger grasp of the English language. There is nothing slanderous about what Rick has said, it's quite easy to verify by checking their website that what Rick said about them refusing LGBT stories is 100% true. For the record here's the definition of slander:slan·derˈslandər/nounLAW1.the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation."he is suing the TV network for slander"verb1.make false and damaging statements about (someone)."they were accused of slandering the head of state"

Lee: I am not missing the point, YOU are creating your own point by taking the title of a company and supplanting your own definition of that company. Nowhere, anywhere on the Clean Reads website is anything derogatory toward LGBT written. You are taking two facets of a company, conjoining them, and then proclaiming that that is a statement by the company, which is not the case.

Rysler, I'm sorry that you are hurt by the fact that a publishing company does not accept certain genres for submission. Not every publisher accepts every genre. Normally this doesn't become a public spectacle, authors simply submit to another publisher.

Rick, I'm sorry that you don't feel welcome at Clean Reads (I feel incredibly welcome, as someone who is part of the LGBT community, and I've been welcomed at Clean Reads with open arms)

Amanda: Thanks for embracing the sort of petty sarcasm so many others here who are eagerly attacking Clean Reads have embraced. I do think I have a pretty good grasp of the English language and this: "Clean Reads, for perpetuating the idea that gay people are "dirty" and not worthy of being included in your canon of "clean" literature." is slander because the fact that a publishing house does not accept a certain genre for publication, doe not as a matter of law, indicate that they are implying that that particular genre is "dirty" or "not worthy". It literally means one thing: They don't publish that genre. Therefore publicly insinuating that Clean Reads has somehow portrayed LGBT people as "dirty" when they have not done so is, in fact, a form of slander.

This will be my last comment, as very obviously there is no room for discussion here, everyone has already fixated on their personal perceptions and the only "right" answer is to agree with them. It is a sad day when a community who has suffered so much injustice and judgement joyfully leaps on the bandwagon in judging, attacking, and ostracizing another group over perceived slights.

I think what you're failing to grasp, Artemis, is that by taking possession of the word "clean" and attaching those things this publisher believes define it, they are also inferring that those things they *don't* believe defines it are therefore implicitly "dirty". So they are able to say it without actually saying, and have left themselves a neat little out through some semantic verbal acrobatics to those who don't know better.

They say they publish "clean". Forget for a moment the very clear implication that sex in any form is "dirty" and concentrate on the fact that they exclude sight unseen any stories with homosexual characters as though the very presence of those characters renders that story "unclean" and you will perhaps come close to the point of this post and the root of the unease.

No one is upset that this press does not specialize in publishing LGBT stories. They're upset that the press *excludes* LGBT stories on the implied basis that such stories--since they apparently can't be considered "clean" by this publisher--are therefore "dirty".

If the press is, as you say, not discriminatory, it should be fairly easy for them to use less discriminatory language in their submissions process. In fact, if they're not as discriminatory as this language implies, they would probably want to.

"No one is upset that this press does not specialize in publishing LGBT stories. They're upset that the press *excludes* LGBT stories on the implied basis that such stories--since they apparently can't be considered "clean" by this publisher--are therefore "dirty".

If the press is, as you say, not discriminatory, it should be fairly easy for them to use less discriminatory language in their submissions process. In fact, if they're not as discriminatory as this language implies, they would probably want to."

^^^^THIS^^^^

They changed their name to "Clean Reads." For a publisher, their language on their submissions page is appalling.

Are they able to publish whatever they want? Sure. But they way they've worded it sure does make it look pretty bigoted.

And if they ARE publishing a book with "homosexual characters" in it (as Artemis is reporting) then why do they even have that on their website?

Does a publisher have a right to pick and choose their niche? Duh, yes.

Do they have the right to pick and choose to exclude certain things? Yes.

Do they need to expect pushback from the public if they are idiots in poorly expressing HOW they phrase their submissions page, ALONG WITH choosing the name "clean reads" to imply that things they don't accept are "dirty?"

If they don't expect pushback, they're a short-sighted bunch of idiots.

I wish those authors well, but good luck with your sales, because it's obvious whoever's in charge there is woefully short-sighted and not very educated regarding modern readers and their reactions.

Here's the quick test: Replace "homosexual characters" with, let's say, "Hispanic characters". Are you cool with this form of discrimination? Is that a case of "Hey, they're just saying that of all the things they *will* publish, Hispanics are just not one. They even have some books by people with names like Perez and Montoya. And there are plenty of publishers who *do* publish stories with Hispanic main characters, so what's the problem?"

Excellent that Clean Reads is one of the only publishers willing to *only* publish books with no sex/violence/swearing. That's actually terrific, given that there's a market for it. So why not include people of all sexual orientations in that? I mean, gay folks can even submit to the no premarital sex rule, since same-sex marriage is legal all over the US and many other countries as well. I can't fathom how it's necessary to exclude an entire class of people, particularly since those are literally the *only* people being excluded. The publisher doesn't appear to exclude whole groups of people based on any other criteria.

Here's the thing: Gay is NOT a "genre." Romance, science fiction, literary fiction, fantasy--those are genres. Gay is a descriptor of an aspect of a person's humanity. And quelle surprise, gay people exist in every single one of those actual genres. Outside of strictly religious publishing houses, I can't think of a single other major or minor publisher who outright refuses entirely to allow gay main characters. But until we stop thinking of gay or lesbian or bisexual or trans or intersex or asexual as being genres of literature, discrimination will continue to be justified on the grounds that "it's just not a genre we publish."

(Oh, and really very icky on the whole "guess what, I have a *minority character*!" Yeah, nobody gets ally cookies for that.)

Carole Cummings, you state that "They say they publish "clean". Forget for a moment the very clear implication that sex in any form is "dirty" and concentrate on the fact that they exclude sight unseen any stories with homosexual characters as though the very presence of those characters renders that story "unclean" and you will perhaps come close to the point of this post and the root of the unease".Take a look at these posts directly from CR's website:"What you need to know:

All genres of fiction accepted No gratuitous sex or “pink parts.” Sexual tension is acceptable, as is kissing and playing, providing again, there are no "pink parts" No premarital sex allowed unless consequences are involved (such as a baby or ruined relationship). If your book condones premarital sex, it’s not for us No cursing or euphemisms No graphic violence Happy For Now (HFN) is acceptable

AND THEN: What we are NOT looking for:

Erotica, homosexual characters, BDSM, fan fiction, poetry, screenplays and non-fiction Manuscripts less than 15,000 words or more than 100,000 words"

Notice that they don't ever call anything "dirty" as you proclaim and that they specifically don't condone PREMARITAL sex. Christians believe that sex is a beautiful blessing given by God but that blessing is only experienced in marriage. There's a major difference between premarital sex and marital sex in terms of emotional consequences and spiritual struggles, even if you don't believe.

Jessica,Rick that's a faulty analogy. Hispanics are born Hispanic. And you may disagree with me, fine, but I don't believe God "made people gay". His Word is clear about homosexuality: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done" (Romans 1:26-28). There are many others, but it is clear that this is unnatural, so why would God make someone like that? To turn their life into a travesty? No. He is Love. And even if you refuse to believe the Bible, think about a man's body and a woman's body and how perfectly they go together. They were made for each other.

Krista, no, "His Word" (um...leaving aside the fact that the Word of God is Jesus, not the Bible) is NOT "clear about homosexuality."

There are exactly 6 passages which could be interpreted as being about "homosexuality." The Bible is too old a book to have used the word, so people have had to determine the meanings of the text. Only one of those outright says same-sex sex is wrong, and even that only refers to men--nothing about women in there, so again, people are inferring. Paul literally made up words for what he was talking about. He could have meant the practice in ancient Greece of older men having sex with boys, or he could have meant temple prostitution. Either way, once again, it only refers to men and/or boys, and it's up to the interpretation of clergy. The one in Romans doesn't necessarily refer to ALL same-sex love, only lust and adultery, and the meaning is murky there, too. And the only other passage is about Sodom and Gomorrah, and that was about hostility toward strangers. Jesus himself said nothing at all about it, which you'd think he would have if it were so important. He did have an awful lot to say about money and how people treat the poor and disabled, though. Funny how that doesn't come up nearly as often.

I could easily supply links to Bible scholars who have spent a lot of time studying this stuff, but I don't have all day. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm pretty much the last person anyone wants to use the phrase "the Bible is clear" on. I'm a child of one Jewish and one Christian parent, I'm a Christian myself (and ethnically Jewish), and I've spent my whole life learning both traditions and studying the Bible. I could do this all day if I didn't have to work.

I typically never respond to these types or style of blogs as I never wish to 'stir the pot' or bring myself to the potential limelight of others thoughts or opinions. Although I may not agree with either side of this thread, I myself as a clean reads model at the convention am disheartened that anybody was offended and sincerely apologize on my behalf. As I write this, I want those to know that I DO NOT frown upon gay, straight, bi, black, white, green, round, square, etc. We are who we are and that should never be judged in my eyes. I was honored to be a part of the RT event as I met many colorful and wonderful people of all types. This comment, may very well in fact create large problems between Clean Reads and I, but I feel that this is a much larger issue that clean reads and I may not see eye to eye on. I had joined clean reads for the mere fact that I portray a very 'clean' and respectable profile as a role model for people of all ages. This is VERY important to me and my morals. Hopefully if you had the opportunity to chat with me while roaming about RT, you will understand that I DO NOT look down upon anybody depending on sexual preferences. Lastly, to Stephanie and the CLEANREADS family- I apologize that you have to find out this way, but now this has been brought to my attention I must inform you that my letter of resignation was in fact written at the convention and is sent your way. I do appreciate you and clean reads for giving me the opportunity to travel and meet so many wonderful people at the RT convention.My deepest apologies to all,Cody Johnvin

Thank you for sharing that, Cody, and for not being reactionary. Believe it or not, I am not trying to stir the pot either, but simply calling out what I see as a discriminatory, hurtful, and backward policy. I'm a spiritual person who believes in the oneness of all of us, which is why I hate to see one group singled out for exclusion. It sends a message not of love, but of exclusion. It's my hope that calling Clean Reads out on this unfortunate position might lead them to change their thinking a bit and to see that "clean reads" can and does include people of all stripes.

Rick, what car do you prefer? I like Corvettes but I don't care for Ford. Am I discriminating? No. I like Pepsi but I don't like Coke. Does that mean I am calling Coke dirty? No. Your final comment here is what is "hurtful and backward". You are suggesting that CR, because they don't publish what you want them to publish, needs to 'change'. You have no right to tell others what to believe. In essence, you are attempting to take away their voice. Now that's discrimination.

I'm appalled. How terrible to be so prejudiced. Astraea Press was my first publisher. I have not had a book with them for five years. Thank God. I'm ashamed to ever have been a part of this company. And I'm unfriending anyone still on my friends list from this group. I do not condone prejudice of any kind, for any reason. Yes, I have put a gay character into one of my "clean" wholesome books, too. And I love Brian -- he's a hoot, smart and a wonderful friend to the heroine. People who think this way shouldn't live in America. This is the land of the free -- of all races, religions and sexual persuasions. But then, I'm Jewish, so perhaps I'm more sensitive to these things. Thus ends any nostalgic feeling for Astaea. You've let me down in the worst way.

It sounds like an exciting convention! As a first-time author with a YA sci-fi/ fantasy about to be released from Clean Reads this week, it has been an amazing experience working with Stephanie and the team. They do have fantastic books, so I hope people will give them a chance. The fact that they don't have cursing, graphic violence, or explicit intimacy has been kind of a haven when that stuff is everywhere.

Since you checked out the submission guidelines, are you in the query trenches currently? Maybe you've written a clean book like the one you describe in your post? If so, all the best of luck with finding a publishing home!

It's nice that you're defending your publisher, Lora, but you also miss the point. Saying that we are "dirty" just because we are LGBT is offensive, and "Maybe you've written a 'clean' book" is... Sorry, I doubt any of us who write gay romance would want to associate with a publisher who considers our work (or OURSELVES) "dirty" because of who we love. That's the point, you see. Or maybe you don't. But "give them a chance?" Fine - when they give LGBT people "a chance." Not until.

Oh, honey. Bless your pea pickin' heart. Rick Reed is a USA today author and has been featured on Breitbart- where he shockingly- received a positive review. He is currently one of the best selling authors at his home publisher, Dreamspinner press. A gay romance publishing house that features stories from skanky slap an ass and call me daddy type books, through historical, and paranormal romance, to ..what was it, 'clean and wholesome' stories about gay people in this world. See, this publishing house accepts stories from people from all walks of life including, but not limited to, straight, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and everyone else. Because see, they don't relegate people to ambiguous social categories like, clean or dirty. They accept people, just the way they are. It takes a certain kind of genius to turn a term like, 'clean' into sounding something that sounds along the lines of 'wretched', 'devoid of humanity', 'thoughtless', and 'antagonistic'.

Krista, would you mind supplying a list of publishers who won't publish anything with religious material? Specifically who won't publish Christian content? Also, please clarify--are they not publishing any religious content at all, are they disallowing religious characters, are they refusing religious non-fiction, are they large publishers directing people to a specific imprint (I believe this is what the big companies do), or are they only excluding specific religions?

I am completely and utterly disgusted by this. I applaud your calm and thoughtful responses to others, Rick, as I at this moment cannot imagine myself being calm. So, I guess I'll go shower to cool down and get clean - Oh wait, I work for LGBTQA+ publishers and read it.

Lee, I do see the point. I do, even if that didn't come across in my efforts at positivity and goodwill here. (And, just to be sure I say it clearly, by clean book I did mean it as Rick described, a gay romance free of cursing, graphic violence, etc.) Anyway, fair point--there are many publishers out there, And I wish you, too, all the best in finding a publishing home for your stories.

By wishing people well in finding a publishing home, you're assuming a lot that hasn't been said--chiefly that they aren't already with a publishing house. The people commenting here that they think this is exclusionary are not bitter people who can't get published (or self-publish).

Rick, I love when people call you out and accuse you of stirring the pot and inciting others...for voicing your opinion on your own blog. That's tantamount to saying you shouldn't ever use this platform to speak your mind, even though it's your constitutional right to do so. And bringing this to the attention of your readers and fellow authors is also your right especially in view of the buttons at RT issue.

Do I think your words were inciteful? No. I think you were trying to helpful but also expressing your personal outrage. This is your space and this is how the world at large blogs...by speaking their feelings about the world around them. I admire how respectful you've been to those who have come here obviously not one of your normal readers, friends or fans just to speak out against your opinion. I'm not sure I could've been as nice had this occured on my blog. You're such a class act and I so enjoy that about you!

I don't think any of the LGBT authors I know need a press so desperately that they would submit there. Places like Dreamspinner (your publisher) and Loose Id (my publisher) do take books that are not filled with curse words and sex. And they don't discrimanate against our books for having LGBT characters. A lot of small presses try to make themselves large, but when they start to limit themselves with hurtful terms of submission as this press has, I just don't see them flourishing.

I...just don't know what to say. The fact that there exists a company that is legally allowed to discriminate like that shows the massive difference of the culture and law environment I live in. I hope your side of the pond catches up soon and I will do what I can to help it along.

This reminds me of some of the reviews I saw on Tim Federle's Better Nate Than Ever books. As books meant for kids as young as 10, they're as "clean" as clean can get. Yet - a thirteen-year-old's first (homosexual) kiss is considered by some reviewers as "graphic homosexuality" unsuitable for kids. It's infuriating.

Ugh, really? My 12yo read those books last year (he was 11) because he's a theater kid and wanted a story about a boy on stage. He loved them, and I saw nothing in there I felt he couldn't handle or wouldn't be appropriate. The kiss was probably the least "mature" content, LOL.

Exactly. I was thinking, "how would a young person just coming out and wanting to write feel if they went to their submission guidelines and found they were unfit to be included?" It's this kind of discrimination that has caused so much shame and self-loathing in our community.

Rick, Wade, I have personally come across NUMEROUS bloggers and publishing house who REFUSE to accept Christian material. I think this is far worse because a Christian believes in God. Why is that "bad"? And why are you guys not getting upset about that? That sounds like a double standard. But I personally don't care. They don't want my stuff, that don't have to want my stuff. How dare I go and bash them and call them bigots and haters because of it?

Krista, since you seem to want to make this about gay books vs. religious books (the two are not mutually exclusive, by the way), but keep using REALLY faulty analogues to do so, thought I'd help you out: this scenario isn't analogous to a publisher accepting fantasy but not religious books; this is analogous to a SPECIFICALLY religious publisher accepting stories from all other religions, but not Christianiy (or Judaism, etc, etc). This is a publisher for romances accepting romantic stories about (presumably*) all types of people, so long as they're chaste, with the single exception of gay people.Publishers of course have the right to fill a niche market -- but they don't get to dictate reader and author reactions to their chosen niche, or their hamhanded approach.

*though I would venture to guess they're majority white and Christian.

Krista, unless you have a list, I have a tendency not to believe there's a vast number of publishers refusing Christian material. And a blogger not wanting to read/review it is entirely different from a publisher not publishing it. No one here is saying bloggers should all *read* gay content. I write a lot of Christian characters/content even though I write LGBT fiction, and yeah, I have trouble getting reviews sometimes. But that's their right not to read it!

A lot of us grew up in families or attended churches which made us feel dirty and unlovable. Is it any wonder that many of us rejected "Christian" values and feel re-traumatized by reading religious books? I can't think of a single instance in which a Christian would suffer PTSD symptoms from reading about gay people, but I can certainly give examples of LGBT people being triggered by religious content.

Amazing. Amazingly bad, that is. This company is clearly stating that LGBT people are not welcome in the stories they publish. Not included at all, in ANY fashion. How can anyone defend that? Would these defenders side with Clean if their submission guidelines singled out POC? Or Jews? To be so blatantly and unashamedly prejudiced takes my breath away.

Exactly. They'd never dare exclude people of color or Jews. Never. But apparently it's still acceptable to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people. The USA government really needs to make a clear federal law to protect this group (the LGBTQ+ people, not the people who discriminate).

I do not associate with people or organizations promoting these prejudices. I certainly would never buy from them since I vote with my dollars.

As everyone has already stated the problem with this publisher:(This is copied directly from the publishers website)"What we are NOT looking for:Erotica, homosexual characters, BDSM, fan fiction, poetry, screenplays and non-fiction"

I can even understand a publisher not focusing on LGBT stories (sucks & I wouldn't buy from them... but their choice) But to say no homosexual characters = no to entire groups of people suggests they can't live up to wholesome values. (Currently, living in the South I know way many individuals who happen to be gay men who are much more wholesome than me)

An author who is published with them has claimed to have a lesbian character >>>> FYI: I haven't fact checked so I'm taking the author at her word... This suggests gay women characters are okay? (Why because they aren't sexual?) Just the men aren't allowed? It smacks of the negative ideas from the past.

((I'm ignoring the BDSM characters because well just their loss))

But when "good wholesome" readers see this PREJUDICE is accepted their kids who might be on the rainbow become less accepted and seen as dirty and as the other... (40% of homeless kids are LGBT, the higher rate of suicide, and all the other negative statistics this publisher helps continue and possible foster).

FYI: In Gen Z (kids growing up now born 1995 to 2012) only 48% of them identify as straight... ((https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/teens-these-days-are-queer-af-new-study-says)). The world is changing and there's not room for rainbow allergies... when within a few generations and a little more education most of us will find we might be on the rainbow... granted we might not be gay men or into BDSM, poetry or screenplays but the society is moving toward openness and away from closed mindness.

Love to all my LGBTQIA+ writers... with every page with change hearts and minds. Be the change you want to see in the world. I hope most of us allows this to motivate us and not hurt us.

I was signing at the con and when it first started, I waved a few potential readers over, but when I saw their pins "CLEAN READS" I stopped and said, oh, wait you won't like my books. (Because ya know, dirty, with a capital D!) and they explained, no no these are just for a giveaway. Hmm...Interesting way to isolate the "dirty" authors from readers. Kind of sad actually. But now that I see what you posted above, I'm more than sad. I'm disgusted and outraged. Further, I could never, WOULD never sub to them since my books contain BDSM, Homosexual characters, and chapter long explicit sex scenes. Crazy, I know, but they also include heretosexual people and vanilla sex (I think lol) but wait, there's more. How about a realistic story that readers can identify with? Yep. I have that too. Oh, and some of my characters drink and smoke. That's it, I'm going to hell. Anyone care to join me?

This is utterly painful to read, and some of the comments are even more painful in their defense of the poor choice of words.

My immediate reaction was to be reminded of the time back when I was homeschooling my kids that an acquaintance started a homeschooling "clean lending library." The surface mission statement was to provide materials appropriate for all ages. But they had a long, long list of topics they considered "unclean." Clean Reads is either run by or catering to a population which does not view LGBT people as clean.

I'm also reminded that the same Bible these people use to justify condemning gay folks has this to say about being "clean": “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” (Acts 10:15)

You guys are missing it. CR never said you were dirty. If you don't like their preferences, then you don't. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want and it is wrong to bash them for it. My daughter, a Christian, was not allowed to sing a song about God in elementary school for the talent show unless it was solely in the patriotic sense. My daughter was enrolled in her home school and was told she could not talk about God, who is Love. yet other little kids were performing religious rituals/dances, allowed to talk about their Muslim beliefs. Now that is "hurtful" and "discriminatory". And still I don't see non-Christians crying out about this wrongful treatment.

Krista, "dirty" was implied by saying "homosexual characters" are not in the "clean" category. The publisher is called Clean Reads, they list all the reasons that title applies, and then the only category of people excluded are LGBT people. Just like the Bible you say is so clear, but which relies on human interpretation, this is a reasonable inference from the context.

As for what's allowed in school, I have no problem with my Christian kids listening to their classmates talk about their religions because Christians are still in the majority. Most people, even non-Christians, know what Christianity is all about. Lots and lots of people still don't even know what Judaism is all about, let alone Islam or Sikhism or Buddhism or any other religion. I don't have a lot of patience for my fellow Christians inventing persecution where none exists.

I wouldn't touch anything designated "Clean Reads" to start with. And then the bit about "guilt in the tag line? I know where they are coming from. Had I been there, I probably would have embarrassed them deeply by doing a Lord Byron routine of "Let me blind you with my filth and wickedness!" Probably very loudly.

This explains why they consider gays dirty better than i ever could. Not only are we unsaved and unsaveable affronts to god and real people, we merit a stronger punishment than the average rapist, according to the theocracy they want.

Seriously? You dont even know the first thing about the authors and your going to judge their company? How dare you? Just because people are part of clean reads or a company that doesn't allow profanity or sex doesn't mean that the authors don't believe in people being gay or straight. I know transgender and gay people, i know authors who write clean stories and stories that have gay characters. I know transgender and Gay people, and a lot of them are my friends, when I'm perfectly straight and engaged to my fiance, So before you go and judge a company by its authors, I suggest you get to know authors first...

I'll tell you what? Why don't you comprehend "Don't judge a book by its cover?" It goes along with "Don't judge a company or its authors by the name of their logo," and maybe we'll talk then... Thanks..

No one here is judging the authors. We're all saying that calling a company Clean Reads, listing all the (pretty reasonable) things it doesn't allow, and then excluding a whole population of people comes across to us.

Ugh. Honestly, everyone's behaviour over this is half the reason why I, a bisexual woman, stay away from the very community that's supposed to be for me (that and how fond said community is to erase my sexuality). What an utter disgraceful way to act.

So what if they don't accept books with a LGBTQA+ theme? Maybe they don't feel as if they've the capacity to handle what can be a sensitive and triggering area of fiction. I'm not saying that's the reason, but there are more logical ways to consider why a business takes such a stance that doesn't pertain to "zomg! they must hate gayz!" They don't. I've read several of their books that have gay secondary characters. What's more, those characters are treated fairly, without discrimination or judgement.

You have your publisher, Rick. I'm sure you're very happy with them and how they cater to your needs (so I do wonder your motive behind bashing on another company). I'm also willing to bet you never asked for any sort of clarification as to what that "no homosexuals" policy meant, like I did.

To reiterate this false message you're spreading: characters considered part of the LGBTQA+ community ARE indeed allowed in all stories, just no LGBTQA+ themed stories. No LGBTQA+ main characters. Maybe they could've worded it better. But, in my opinion, you seem the type who wouldn't be satisfied unless they were exactly like what you want.

I agree with anonymous. When I first read your post, I was upset as I'm a Clean Reads author and straight supporter of the LGBT community. I honestly hadn't even noticed that part in the submissions page. Sure, your blog post was pretty straightforward and came from a feeling of hurt and exclusion you got out of it. We all get different things out of things. But the comments that followed have made me sick to the stomach. For one, I don't think it was ever their intention to exclude anyone or make anyone feel dirty. In fact, the LGBT part was put with fan fiction and poetry, not with the "no violence and sex" part. But it seems that everyone here is intent to believe the absolute worst and lambaste a publishing company that's really a great one because they can. Humans can be so violent with their words, it's kind of scary. One of my Clean Reads books has a homosexual character in (who's put in a good light) and he was not edited out at all. I'm more appalled by the vitriolic response to your post than anything else. Please be aware that it would never be the publisher's heart to hurt and discriminate against anyone - I just know she's not like that but is a wonderful, kind and generous person who treats her authors like gold. I write romance with no sex and I write other romance with lots of sex. I'm grateful that Clean Reads publishes my sweet romances and am not offended at all that they don't publish my romances with sex scenes in. That's their choice and they were my debut publisher so I'm truly grateful to how they've helped me and shown me so much about writing. I don't write LGBT romances, not because I have anything against them - I've read a couple of lovely ones - but it's because I really wouldn't do them justice. Yes, I understand where you are coming from but I do think that the spirit in which this whole blog post has turned has gone bad. And possibly, it could have been worded in a more questioning and less attacking way. Maybe you don't realise how much angst you may have caused people even though your intentions were only good to defend the LGBT community. Wishing you the best. And please try to believe the best of people - that the intention was to never hurt, judge or exclude people.

"To reiterate this false message you're spreading: characters considered part of the LGBTQA+ community ARE indeed allowed in all stories, just no LGBTQA+ themed stories. No LGBTQA+ main characters."

So what you're saying is it's OK to use as as props as long as it's not actually our stories? Because I have a feeling that when you say LGBT themes you don't mean HIV and Stonewall but just us living and falling in love.

Folks: I don't know the publishing house or the people behind it or the authors who submit to them. All I can go by is what they have in black and white on their submissions page. Words matter.

Take a moment and exchange the word homosexual for an other minority group. I wonder how many writers would submit or defend having no vegetarians characters, no Jewish characters, no red heads, or pick a skin color. It's easy to see how that's a no brainer... adding an orientation, gender, age, etc promotes a negative atmosphere.Any publisher is well within their right to specialize in a genre or have no sex/cursing but when you call out a specific group to say NO we don't want THESE type of characters: it hurts. (We're losing are kids due to these ideas)

If you don't think these ideas seeps into a societal mindset you'd be wrong. Even without quoting you studies ask yourself why Coke spends millions on advertising? Because it works. Words matter.

If the publishing house isn't promoting negative ideas then an adjustment in the wording would be in order. An apology is a wonder and healing thing. (Even if I don't hurt someone on purpose but do indeed hurt them I apologize.)

Again, I will continue to write with love. LGBTQIA+ writers with every page you open hearts and minds... continue to do so.

"To reiterate this false message you're spreading: characters considered part of the LGBTQA+ community ARE indeed allowed in all stories, just no LGBTQA+ themed stories. No LGBTQA+ main characters."

So what you're saying is it's OK to use as as props as long as it's not actually our stories? Because I have a feeling that when you say LGBT themes you don't mean HIV and Stonewall but just us living and falling in love.

I'm going to close comments on this thread now. Not because I am against the free exchange of ideas, but because there's a lot of the same things being said over and over and because it does seem to be stirring up hate, on both sides of the issue, and that was never my intention.

I was going to go in refute some of the points made, but I think that's already been done, and probably said more eloquently than I could.

I'd like to thank ALL of you for taking the time to write and weigh in on things. Bonus points if you were diplomatic about it.

One thing I do want to say is to those who said I was out to "bash" Clean Reads and that I knew nothing, or little, about them.

First, my intention was never to bash, but to question and call out a policy I feel is discriminatory and possibly hurtful. If that's bashing, then no one should ever speak up about what they feel are perceived injustices.

Second, I did research Clean Reads. First, because when I saw them at the RT convention, I wondered about them and was curious. I was not looking for anything to be offended by. I read their entire website, Googled them, and I hope I kept an open mind. Before I got to their submissions page, I thought--and still think--they have a beautiful, streamlined and easy-to-understand website, their covers are gorgeous, their blurbs are intriguing, and they have a roster of inspired and dedicated authors. My post grew NOT out of ignorance, but out of the research I did on Clean Reads. When I saw their submissions page is when I felt I needed to speak up. Because I try and come from a place of love and inclusiveness, of oneness, and it's my hope to see others embrace that. When we all do, the world will be a better place--that's my heartfelt belief.

That said, I'd like to close with a request that Clean Reads open their minds and hearts to diversity, to celebrate people of all types in their stories. Give love and openness a chance. You can still have all your prohibitions against profanity, on-page sex and so on, but simply allow that love is love...and see what happens. I suspect you might find that there's room for everyone at the table, where love and acceptance are concerned.

Thank you all! If you're a writer, I wish you well and that you find contentment and joy in your work. If you're a reader, my hope is that you find stories that make you think, that bring you joy, and that open your eyes to the wide and beautiful spectrum of people and places out there.

Follow by Email and Never Miss a Post!

Real Men. True Love.

I draw inspiration from the lives of gay men to craft stories that quicken the heartbeat, engage emotions, and keep the pages turning. Although I dabble in horror, dark suspense, and comedy, my attention always returns to the power of love. I'm addicted to books--I've written and had published more than 35 novels and counting, some of which have won awards and made it to the top of the Amazon bestseller charts. I'm forever at work on yet another book. Lambda Literary called me: "A writer that doesn't disappoint…" I live in Palm Springs, CA with my beloved husband and our Boston terrier. When I'm not writing, I'm cooking, reading, running, or traveling.

Visit (and please follow) my Amazon author page to see all the books I have waiting for you to dive into!